Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your take is: "You got a state license, so you should accept whatever the government decides to do with state license." Let that sink in.
No, my take is that you should manage your risk. If you don't want the risk of the state changing its rules don't tie your employment to that state. My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
131–140 of 225 posts
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#132Erdogan knows that very well, hence he tried to play double face with NATO/Russia (BRICS)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#133So this is ludicrous and hazardous for the obvious reasons. And mirrors recent trends in media, social and otherwise, here in USA. Control of information by a crew of rich guys is bad. Control by the vast mob of malleable munchkins is worse. I actually think that, on the whole-society scale, less control is the desirable course here. Let individuals do their own filtering. Or not. Give chaos a chance.
The problem in both cases is obvious.
When people can take actions that benefit themselves despite (and often because of) negative repercussions to others, many people are not going to “filter” themselves
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#134Think about the power you want the government to have. And then imagine what your political opponents will do with it the next time they win the election.
Your point doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Any power you enable/disable can also be enabled/disabled in the future. Let's say you want to enshrine the rights to free speech so you put it into the constitution. Any future government can just take it out, just completely ignore its existence, say it doesn't apply in this situation, or work around it but requiring some civil agreement. --- To put things…
Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.)
More generally, here's a door. It's closed. You'd like to open it and walk through it. The other side would, too. But neither side has, so far.
If you leave the door closed, the other side may open it and walk through it the next time they're in power. But if you open it and walk through it, the other side definitely will walk through it when they're in power. So think carefully about whether you want to open that door.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad laws are beneficial to anyone who can use them well enough for their advantage. That is why we try to come up with good laws. But having no laws are worse.
I can say without a reasonable doubt that misinformation laws are not "good" laws. At absolute best they're as shortsighted as they are misguided, opening the door for a ruling party to arbitrarily declare what reality is and isn't, and take punitive action against anyone who disagrees.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning political dissent to save democracy is "destroy[ing] the village in order to save it."
Dissent is not the same as lying. In the worst case, people conflate the two to rationalize tolerance for having no repercussions for promoting damaging lies And there can be wide gray areas where people’s perspectives, literacy of facts, or motives are too different to make a clear judgement between disagreement and reckless or intentional faslehoods. But they are not the same
Was the Steele Report disinformation? Depends if ask you Donald Trump or the FBI. Was the Hunter biden laptop disinformation? Depends who you ask. Was "vaccines don't prevent covid" disinformation? Depends on when you ask the CDC.
You could avoid a slippery slope by drawing the line at intentionally and knowingly telling a mistruth--that's essentially where US defamation laws draw the line. But that is almost never where the line is drawn. Under that definition of lying, Anti-vaxers aren't lying--they are just wrong.
And on the slip side, when the government intentionally lies--masks don't work--its not disinformation--its a messaging technique.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#137The world would, without a doubt, be a better place if politicians, news organizations, influencers/celebrities, etc. did not lie to the masses. It would also likely be a much quieter place, in that some of these entities would not be able to produce so much content due to the need to corroborate before posting, printing or opening their mouths. Some would be silent, because a lot of these people are truly ignorant a…
It's present as far back as Plato's Republic; the idea that an accurate communication of truth is not ideal for the preservation of a society. Rather, he advocated for the guardians and rulers of the city - and, let us not forget, therefore the conscious mind in his allegory - be taught untruth. That their nature is such-and-such, and therefore society is the way that it is. Obviously to modern sensibilities, the actual content of the lie that he proposes, and the society he describes, are abhorrent, but the idea that falsehood is more useful in binding a group together than truth remains poignant.
The Noble Lie underpins our ideas of the values of myths, legends, and even shared culture ("If you want to build a boat, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."). In modern times, in comes in the form of the American Dream, of the idea that a superorganism like a government or non-profit or corporation could "stand" for any values conceivable or desirable by the mere humans that make them up. It is the grease in the gears that allow modern developed societies to function as efficiently as they do. For example, to believe that it is abnormal, unusual, even evil to be corrupt is to bind oneself tightly to more proper behavior. As one learns more of widespread and open corruption, it becomes easier to justify taking part oneself, until one's pulchritude turns from admirable moral steadfastness to comical adherence to obsoleted ideals. The breakdown of social order begins with the dissolution of the lies that bind people together past Dunbar's Number, into a collective that believes, even if faintly and insincerely, that each other member is as deserving of happiness and success as they.
I propose that if people believe that their society is fair, just, and truthful, they will act as if it were so, and the good among them make it so. Those inclined to their own good above the good of their kin and kindred will, of course, be able to abuse such trust to great advantage, requiring controls as you've pointed out to identify such proclivities and deter the individuals or contain their damage. Mark that; it is a failing of a high-trust society (such as America's) that they are vulnerable to psychopaths.
In this, we find the argument for allowing leaders to lie to their people. To tell the unvarnished truth rips away the polite lie that society works for their benefit and in so doing makes the most extreme failures of that mode possible. It makes fools of honest people by exposing how foolish honesty can be. Lie, and say that soldiers will never be forgotten, their sacrifices necessary. Lie, and say that your vote and voice matter, that your citizenship carries sacred duties. Lie, and say that the moral arc of your culture is righteous, and that in the end all shall receive their just rewards. Lie, and allow the world to spin one day longer. And I can see the counterargument that this is equivalent to dealing with a rotting foundation by painting over the cracks and the mold and claiming that everything is fine, of standing in the burning room and denying the heat. I disagree with that assessment.
Humans have the ability to become as they aspire to be. Surround a man with fools and it will not take long for him to begin to act foolishly to fit in with his peers. Take that same man and give him the company of the wise, and he will strive to become like them. The same is true for societies. Humans take more notice of their losses than their gains. They pay more attention to threats and insults than gifts and compliments. Tell a man of his 99 admirable qualities and one deficiency, and see which statement he remembers better! By this failure we see the problem of the strict truth; the quickest, surest path to individual success is, most often, one that betrays the ideals of your society. Unable to disguise that fact, the intelligent soon realize that honor, justice, equality, and all other good and noble things your society strives for are chains that bind them to failure. When all realize this, society is lost.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#138I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other sta…
If you don't want to be beholden to the state then don't get a state enforced license. > 270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccin…
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you but that’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to pressure on young people to get the vaccine to avoid harming the elderly. If we never tested transmission… what was that about? Why not just let the elderly get it and the young risk it if they wanted? What was behind “by getting the vaccine you are protecting others” when all we actually know is that it protects yourself? There’s probably a…
Government messaging around this was poor all around. In many places masks were pushed to "protect yourself" (so half the people would automatically not do it out of machismo) rather than "protect others" (which is how regular masks mostly work in reality). Vaccines fully preventing transmission is also technically not true, personally I never watched the news and only skimmed the actual studies so I knew it but a lo…
Mistakes were inevitable, I remember having a conversation with my brother back in March 2020 where we came to the conclusion that given the lack of data mistakes would be made, and these would be used by conspiracy theorists and be politicised to spread dangerous and even deadly propaganda that would get a lot of people killed. I dearly wish we had been wrong, but here we are.
Re: Turkey adopts media law jailing for spreading ‘disinformation’
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact... I wonder if they wonder if substantially (the memeplex is...complex) describing it otherwise was to their advantage, in retrospect.
Who's "they"? It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives).
Tautologically, and objectively: those who said such things (intentionally or otherwise, and (from a causality perspective, which is contrary to the far more popular "justified" perspective) it is also subject to imperfect perception on the other end of the wire, if one is able to be comfortable with being extremely "scientific"). This is kinda what I was getting at by "the memeplex is...complex".
> It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives).
I do not substantially disagree. However, it may also be to our advantage to consider (or at least, try to consider) whether the degree to which we do such things is highly optimal in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, Western culture seems to have somehow ended up in a situation where speculative, and relative, representations of reality are considered (and taught, constantly) to be synonymous with reality itself....and, there is no shortage of thought terminating memes out there to keep us permanently at this stage (perhaps some of them will even emerge in response to this comment).
Pardon if this is a bit excessively negative/pessimistic, but I am losing patience with the state of affairs on this planet. I gave you an upvote as a counterbalance, for what that's worth.